Author
Topic: "...Except when my God is involved" (Read 74349 times)

Moral subjectivity is simply a fact of life, not something we grant to others. None of us are advocating the right to choose whatever morals you want to follow. You simply made a bunch of incorrect assumptions.

BibleStudent, please pay attention to the corrections, as they will allow you to respond to the actual positions of the members you are debating. This one is helpful, but Azgari has also mentioned an important one regarding JeffPT here.

Irrelevant. You cannot say that morality is subjective and then judge another person's actions when they are entitled to the same moral liberty that you are. Period. You say the Nazis actions were immoral based on what's in your mind and that there is nothing wrong with your assessment. You are neither right or wrong. Yet, you become a hypocrite the second you withhold that same liberty from someone else by judging their morality as wrong.....which is precisely what you are doing when you cast an immoral infraction against the Nazis.

He is not offering a philosophical idea or theoretical scenario for you to critique, he is revealing the reality of the matter, for him, to you. Move past "you can't do that", perhaps, to "o.k. you do that, and here's what I think about it".

Irrelevant. You cannot say that morality is subjective and then judge another person's actions when they are entitled to the same moral liberty that you are. Period. You say the Nazis actions were immoral based on what's in your mind and that there is nothing wrong with your assessment. You are neither right or wrong. Yet, you become a hypocrite the second you withhold that same liberty from someone else by judging their morality as wrong.....which is precisely what you are doing when you cast an immoral infraction against the Nazis.

Yes I can, and I am. They are entitled to judge my actions in the same way I judge theirs. It's as simple as that. I DO say the Nazi's were immoral. That is my opinion. Lots of people share that opinion. I feel justified in doing so because I feel that unjustly hurting other people is wrong.

I don't claim to be right or wrong. It is my opinion that they acted immorally. Whether you like it or not, I have the right to have that opinion. That's what morality is... after all. Simply an opinion. Are you saying I am not entitled to think what they did was wrong? I am judging them by how their actions stack up against what I believe to be "good" and "bad". They are doing exactly the same thing. They are entitled to think that they are correct and so am I. It is not hypocritical to judge that they are being immoral when their actions are viewed (by me) as immoral. It would only be hypocritical if I condemned them for their actions and perpetrated them at the same time. They are free to call me immoral for wanting to save the Jews.

But this only further strengthens my argument. You see, the Nazi's are perfectly well within their right to claim the Jews deserve to die, because there is no cosmic, god like authority out there. What the rest of the people on this planet do about it, is ALSO well within their rights. The Nazi's did what they did because they believed it to be "right". I rise against them because I believe they are "wrong". What more evidence do you need that morality is subjective?

Same as above. Under your idea of subjective morality, I can neither be right or wrong since I am entitled to the same freedom in choosing my moral code as you are. Again, you are a hypocrite to even suggest that I am immoral for anything I think or do.

I am not claiming you are right or wrong. I am claiming I think your actions are horrible. It's my opinion. I can claim an action of yours is immoral if MY version of morality says it's immoral. You are free to claim otherwise. Thats the beauty of subjective morality. And it just continues to prove my point. Problems arise when my moral code conflicts so heavily with your moral code that we can't see eye to eye anymore. That's when conflict arises. Luckily for the world, the vast, vast majority of people find genocide to be completely repulsive, and that is one reason the world rose up against the Nazi's... because we all believed what they were doing was wrong. Were they wrong? That depends, again, who you ask.

It's the same with anything we form opinions on. You might hate to eat steak. I might love to eat steak. Both of us have opinions about steak, but neither of us is "right" or "wrong". We are both free to state our opinions about steak. You are free to say "steak sucks". I am free to say "steak owns". Neither of us is correct or wrong.

I knew the moment that I revealed my adherence to truthfulness in the hypothetical that the topics of discussion (namely Pharaoh's hard heart and the issue of morality) would become secondary to an assault on my character. Very predictable around here.

Dude, did you not say you would tell the Nazi's you were hiding a family? What did you expect, hugs? Did you not expect people to call you out for what you said? If you don't want your character assaulted, retract it. Otherwise it's open season. You simply prove beyond any doubt that the morality of the atheist is far superior to that of the religious person (as long as the criteria we are judging morality on is the preservation of innocent life).

There is a line between adherence to truthfulness and lying to tyrants in order to preserve innocent life. My morality says you are a prick (in this case). Your morality says you are doing what your God wants. The reason I can call you a prick is because your moral views in this case are so far from mine that you deserve to be called all sorts of nasty names. That is my opinion. Am I objectively right? No, and I don't claim to be. But neither can you claim to be.

If you assume that our morality has evolved and that it will continue to evolve, then please explain the acceleration of immorality in our world. We seem to be heading "away" from something beneficial to the human condition rather than "towards" it. If you do not believe our morality has evolved and will continue to evolve, then disregard this question.

I do not believe there is an acceleration of immorality in our world. What you percieve to be increasing immorality is simply your response to what the media shows you. Bad things get more publicity / ratings than good things, and you misinterpret that to mean that immorality is increasing. Your church may tell you that immorality is increasing, but that is just because the pastor / priest is just as fooled as you (and they watch too much Fox News). But look around you. The vast, vast majority of the people here are still good people. The vast majority of people still respect each others rights. We still help each other. I am not blind, however, to the ongoing "bad" stuff that happens has to do with divisions caused by things like religion, nationalism, sexism, homophobia, racism etc. Those seem to be long standing problems that are difficult to eliminate. Imagine how much better this world would be if the divisivness of religions were gone, nobody thought their country was better than someone elses, people of both genders were treated equally and people of all races finally understood that we all put our pants on one leg at a time. That's what being an atheist has done for me. We all have the right to live our lives the way we wish as long as I do not use my rights to supplant someone elses.

Oh to be sure, morality evolved, but it's not that simple. Morality is shaped by evolution, but culture and experiences play a giant role as well. Case in point... the Nazi's. Why do you think they did what they did? Their culture and experiences made them believe that the Jews were subhuman, thereby making it easy to override the evolved notion that all human life deserves a degree of respect. That's why they fought and died FOR each other (they still felt other Nazi's deserved respect), but killed Jews without mercy (they lost respect for Jewish life).

So do I. However, I do so with an objective moral code based on a written laws and a prescribed means for dealing with other human beings given to us by our Creator. You, however, do so under your own personally conceived sense of morality and then deprive the people you condemn of the same freedom to choose their own morality.

Bull crap. You pick and choose what laws you want to follow out of your holy book and you know it. You do NOT follow all the moral codes based on the written laws of your special book. Your morality comes from inside you FIRST, and you filter the book through that to pick out what fits with your own morality... while rejecting the rest. You are no better than anyone else and you know it. You want examples? Ok...

Do you stone children for talking back to their parents? God explicitly commands it. Have you ever eaten shellfish? God explicitly commands NOT to do it. Have you ever worked on a Sunday? You should be killed. Have you ever owned a slave? No? God says you can if you want. Just don't beat them too badly. Ever killed a gay person? God says you should.

All of those are written codes within your magic book that you have chosen NOT to follow. So how dare you get up on your high horse and claim you follow the bible when you clearly have never stoned a child at Wal Mart when he is talking back to his mommy for not getting him a pack of Juicy Fruit.

I would never do half of the things that "the creator" tells you to do in that book. It's a disgusting book filled with many horrible rules that most people would reject outright.

Why do you keep saying I am depriving people of something? I am not doing that at all. Is it objectively wrong to kill a child for talking back to his mother? No, because there is no objective morality. My opinion is that it is wrong, and I feel strongly enough that I would rise up against a parent who felt it morally acceptable to kill their child, for sure. In fact, every time I read a story about how some dumb s**t parents didn't take their child to the hospital because they wanted to pray instead, I would like to strangle them. That parent is also free to fight back at me, but unfortunately for them, the vast majority of the other people would be on my side. But if there WAS objective morality like you say, and it came from the bible, then all 3 of my children should be dead by my own hands. F**k any God who asks me to do that.

I would love to hear your opinion on that though. Is it objectively right, or wrong to kill a child that talks back to his mother? Please give me all biblical references you can find for the way parents should treat their children when they are bad, because I would like to see them. ( I know what they are, but I want to see how you defend the notion that it's wrong to kill children using biblical references )

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Second, in considering whether Pharaoh was a willing or unwilling participant in his own hardening, there is no sense in the passage that the hardening of Pharaoh's heart was contrary to Pharaoh's desire. There are no statements that Pharaoh wanted to be merciful to Israel but God prevented him from doing so. Pharaoh was a hard taskmaster over the Israelites. He was cruel and capricious. He was not a nice person before God sent Moses to Egypt. The fact that Scripture states often that Pharaoh caused his own heart to be hardened lends credence to the view that the hardening of Pharaoh's heart was a cooperative effort. It was Pharaoh's desire to have a hard heart towards Israel.

and also:

Hard hearts ultimately are our responsibility, not God's. God tells us in Joel 2:12 to turn to Him with all of our hearts and to rend our hearts. A broken and repentant heart God will not despise (Psalm 51:17). And God's very nature is to show mercy (Exodus 34:5-7). Jonah knew this (Jonah 4:2)

None of which changes the fact that the bible directly states that GOD harden the Pharaoh's heart. You're trying to say that the bible doesn't say this, that Pharaoh was entirely at fault for his own harden heart, that god was only saying that he knew Pharaoh was a bad boy, etc. Nope; the text, very plainly, states that god did an action of some sort that harden the Pharaoh heart, and the text also states that god planned it that way "to gain glory" for himself. Nothing you can say will change this.

"Two hands working can do more than athousand clasped in prayer." – Anonymous-----"Properly read, the Bible is the most potentforce for atheism ever conceived." – Isaac Asimov-----"The government of the United States is not,in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams

EDIT: Does anyone else appreciate the irony that BibleStudent is harping on the Nazis as an example of an objective evil, while having stated that he would have preferred to help them commit their atrocities rather than to lie to them? Cheesy

Quote from: OnePerson

I just have to point out that it's hilariously ironic how you're talking about condemning Nazis after the way you answered that "lie or let Nazis kill family" question.

You know, when a Christian starts making posts, I kind of wished I had never posted, because the thread becomes nothing but the Christian promoting their BS and the atheists arguing with them.

And this thread was interesting before BibleStudent showed up.

Dude... You're full of shit. The rest of us know it. No one is taking you seriously.Go try to convince a fundalmental Hindu or Muslim that your religion is correct. What you will hear coming from them won't be much different then what we hear coming from you, and they'll have about the same chance of converting you.

The sad fact of the matter is, our society has become increasingly indifferent to the consequences of being dishonest ...

And in the Nazi example you appear to be indifferent to the consequences of being honest. Of what value is honesty if it causes injustice? No action is in itself intrinsically moral. That can only be judged by the consequences. I agree that the truth is usually better than deception. But you also have to weigh the results.

and I believe it is because we are straying further and further from the moral foundation that has kept us restrained. A comment or two was made earlier in this thread that indicated our morality has evolved and is still evolving….yet, we are not heading in the right direction. The condition of how we interact with each other is, in fact, getting worse. If we're evolving, we're going in the wrong direction.

Foundations change even for you guys. And as for going in the wrong direction, malarkey. To quote kcrady:

Quote

Is it wrong to eat lobster wrapped in bacon? Before Jesus: yes, both are an abomination unto the Lord. After Jesus: no, actually that sounds pretty tasty!

Is it wrong to wear clothes made from more than one type of fiber? Before Jesus: yes. After Jesus: no.

Is it wrong to let somebody with any defect, like a flat nose or a crushed testicle into a place of worship? Before Jesus: yes. After Jesus: no.

Is it wrong to be gay? Before Jesus: yes, it's an abomination to the Lord and ought to be a capital offense! After Jesus: yes, but gayness can now be easily cured with a three-week counseling retreat.

Is slavery wrong? Before Jesus: no. After Jesus: no. After Appomattox: yes.

I also took the time to point out that even if you had it your way, it was still yhwh who made it happen. You did not even respond to that. Instead you gave me a very dismissive and disrespectful dodge. I do not appreciate that. Please answer my points.

Oh brother. Are you really that sensitive?I am trying to staying on point. We are talking about Pharaoh's hard heart.....not God' omnipotence. However, just so you don't get your undies into too much of a bunch, I will stipulate to the fact that God was fully aware and intimately involved in the event.

Look dickweed, I took the time and effort to respond to your silly post. Maybe that was more than you deserved. I don't think asking for a response is sensitive, getting my undies in a bunch or too much to ask so spare me the eyerolling. yhwh's alleged omnipotence is not off point. It is a factor in determining culpability here.

‘Subjective morality’ is an oxymoron. It necessarily permits that any action can be “right” or “wrong” depending on the person who committed the act believes it to be so. It implies that all people are morally perfect and condones acts which are obviously immoral.

If morality even exists, and I believe it does, then it can only exist objectively. Subjective morality suggests that anything and everything can be rationalized by each of us individually with the intent to establish reasons to legitimize our beliefs. That is a biased belief system no matter how you slice it or dice it that promotes itself on a subjective basis but imposes it objectively on others. That is about as illogical as any argument can be. It is self-contradictory. It is blatantly illogical to say that morality is “subjective” and then project your beliefs onto someone else in any way, shape, or form. It can only become logical when you point to an objective truth in order to validate your position.

You can believe in morality but you cannot justify your belief. You can say that the Nazis were wrong but without an objective standard of morality, then how can it be wrong?

BibleStudent, you misunderstand what "evolve" means in JeffPT's post. It means "to change". It doesn't have a goal. When something evolves, it's not "getting better", or going "towards" something. It isn't teleological.

Now, having been corrected on this point, you won't actually accept the correction - right?

Ugh, again. So, which is it....did it evolve or did it "change" into being ?

The definition of "evolve" states the following: to develop gradually by a process of growth and change......to develop by gradual changes; unfold.

The word "develop" means to build up or expand (a business, industry, etc.) to make stronger or more effective;

This certainly seems to suggest that the process of evolving inherently produces a move towards greater strength or effectiveness. But, since I have been informed that morality is not decaying, there is no sense discussing what mechanism(s) are at work in effecting any potential outcomes.

The nazis were supplanting the rights of others. And that may be the only morality that's close to "objective"; the right to not have your rights supplanted, as long as your exercise of those rights do not supplant anyone elses rights. AKA The Golden Rule.

The nazis were supplanting the rights of others. And that may be the only morality that's close to "objective"; the right to not have your rights supplanted, as long as your exercise of those rights do not supplant anyone elses rights. AKA The Golden Rule.

Am I correct then in deducing that sometimes morality is subjective and sometimes it is objective ? This question is not meant to mock your comments....I would just like to know if I am understanding you correctly.

‘Subjective morality’ is an oxymoron. It necessarily permits that any action can be “right” or “wrong” depending on the person who committed the act believes it to be so. It implies that all people are morally perfect and condones acts which are obviously immoral.

This is the second time I've seen this false dilemma coming from you. Really, what's with this subjective morality= people are perfect nonsense? You're not actually sugguesting that people would be better off without god, are you?

Quote

Subjective morality suggests that anything and everything can be rationalized by each of us individually with the intent to establish reasons to legitimize our beliefs.

Well, yes. That's how it works, basically. I can even prove that you are doing the same thing yourself. If you believe that god is the source of all morality, then do you believe it is OK to own slaves? Yes or no. Do you believe women should be treated as second-class citizens? Yes or no. Should parent stone their children to death for being stubborn? Yes or no. Should we kill those that work on the sabbath day? Yes or no. Should homosexual be put to death? Yes or no.

If you answer 'no' to any of these, then you are following your own sense of morality. Of course, I know you'll probably insist that those things are no longer vaild, since Jesus did away with them. You consider these god-approved ideas to be immoral, but you'll try to avoid giving a direct answer so you won't be seen as an immoral person, or seen as disagreeing with god. Which will prove my point.

He is not offering a philosophical idea or theoretical scenario for you to critique, he is revealing the reality of the matter, for him, to you. Move past "you can't do that", perhaps, to "o.k. you do that, and here's what I think about it".

Am I correct then in deducing that sometimes morality is subjective and sometimes it is objective ? This question is not meant to mock your comments....I would just like to know if I am understanding you correctly.

No, morality is always subjective. You can't be "close to objective" anymore than you can be "close to pregnancy".

The nazis were supplanting the rights of others. And that may be the only morality that's close to "objective"; the right to not have your rights supplanted, as long as your exercise of those rights do not supplant anyone elses rights. AKA The Golden Rule.

Am I correct then in deducing that sometimes morality is subjective and sometimes it is objective ?

No, it is always subjective, by definition. I erred in stating that it's "close". There are no instances of objective morality, because morality is not measurable, not quantifiable, strictly speaking.

‘Subjective morality’ is an oxymoron. It necessarily permits that any action can be “right” or “wrong” depending on the person who committed the act believes it to be so. It implies that all people are morally perfect and condones acts which are obviously immoral.

No, and no. You're examining it as if it is a stand alone process, isolated from all other factors. By removing it from the human social context you are the one rendering the concept nonsensical. You need to respond to the position actually held by the people you are having a discussion with.

You're placing a leg in the middle of the room, and railing at it for not being an Ikea table. I'm outside with the rest of the parts wondering what you've been smoking.

If morality even exists, and I believe it does, then it can only exist objectively.

I believe that if you are in charge of defining the subject concept yourself, then this discussion is a self-reinforcing farce. The definition is the subject being debated. You might as well say "I'm right and you're wrong because I say so".

Subjective morality suggests that anything and everything can be rationalized by each of us individually with the intent to establish reasons to legitimize our beliefs. That is a biased belief system no matter how you slice it or dice it that promotes itself on a subjective basis but imposes it objectively on others.

Yes, that is a facet. Why are you ironically employing this very component as your sole discussion strategy?

That is about as illogical as any argument can be. It is self-contradictory. It is blatantly illogical to say that morality is “subjective” and then project your beliefs onto someone else in any way, shape, or form. It can only become logical when you point to an objective truth in order to validate your position.

Why is the fact that you don't like reality a good reason to dismiss it? This way lies solipsism and your ego's ultimate ace in the hole.

Edit: Also, humans do have some behavioural norms dictated by biology. You can't ignore cross-culturally common types of morays.

You can believe in morality but you cannot justify your belief. You can say that the Nazis were wrong but without an objective standard of morality, then how can it be wrong?

The buck stops with humankind and the cognitive linguistic process, it's sole method of exploring the matter cooperatively. You need to check your huberis at the door if you actually want to grow here.

I agree with Jessie; Great Post! Also with Jetson, you totally pwnz0red BibleStudent. I would like some (hopefully minor) clarifications, as there are parts I'm just a little confused about. Hopefully these should prove to be some minor addendums I'm sure you just overlooked.

It's the same with anything we form opinions on. You might hate to eat steak. I might love to eat steak. Both of us have opinions about steak, but neither of us is "right" or "wrong". We are both free to state our opinions about steak. You are free to say "steak sucks". I am free to say "steak owns". Neither of us is correct or wrong.

This sounds like you're saying our opinions on what is morally right and wrong is equivalent to our opinions on weather or not chocolate milk is tasty.

Luckily for the world, the vast, vast majority of people find genocide to be completely repulsive, and that is one reason the world rose up against the Nazi's... because we all believed what they were doing was wrong. Were they wrong? That depends, again, who you ask.

You are saying that the "world rose up against the Nazi's" because we disagreed on a matter of no more import than the tastiness of chocolate milk. Would you agree with this sentiment? Also, you preface this statement with 'Luckily', indicating it was a good thing. Would it be a similarly good thing if the majority of the world that found chocolate milk tasty rose up against that portion that didn't find it tasty and killed them (the way we did the German soldiers and civillians) for the disagreement? If not, why not? (I'm assuming you'll say Genocide and Choclate Milk tastiness are different. I personally think Genocide and Chocolate Milk tastiness are in two different categories as well. You just got through saying all disagreements are equivalent though, per your statement I quoted above, so I'm all sorts of confused)

In an earlier post you said, also speaking about the world recoiling at Naziism,

When you have that sort of consensus on an issue, then our sense of justice takes over, and it becomes necessary to hold them accountable for what they did.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'sense of justice' here. Is it just consensus? You mentioned in the same post the percentages of 99% and 1%, is that the kind of consensus needed for our sense of justice to take over? If so, were those the actual percentages of people who agreed/disagreed with Nazi's on the whole (according to you, trivial) genocide question? Did somebody count? If those are numbers you just made up, then what kind of consensus is needed? 60/40? 51/49?

You simply prove beyond any doubt that the morality of the atheist is far superior to that of the religious person (as long as the criteria we are judging morality on is the preservation of innocent life).

It is? First of all, according to your 'morality is like weather or not we like steak' idea, what does 'innocent' mean, anyway? Innocent usually means lacking in wrongdoing, but since right and wrong are equivalent to the tastiness of steak or chocolate milk, 'Innocent' would just mean... what? Lacking in disagreement over various aesthetic preferences? With whom? You? The majority? In that case I don't think anyone would be innocent. I'd love to hear how you define this whole innocent life thing, as it's quite confusing.

Further, supposing we could nail down 'Innocent', why is 'preservation of innocent life' a standard against which we can judge the atheist morality to be 'superior' to that of the Christian? Even if you were correct that the atheist morality preserved more 'innocent' life than the Christian, would you suppose it would be OK for the Nazi to then say something like 'True, but on the standard of killing as many Jewish people as possible, Naziism has both atheism and Christianity beat hands down.'? If you're unprepared to admit Naziism is superior to your worldview (at least according to some definitions), could you explain why not?

We all have the right to live our lives the way we wish as long as I do not use my rights to supplant someone elses.

So does that mean we really shouldn't have gone to war with the Nazis, even though they were committing a bona-fide genocide against a truly frightening number of people, because we were supplanting their right to live in a world lacking in Jewish people? Does that mean that BibleStudent was right when he advocated not lying to the Nazi officer, because it infringed upon the Nazi officers' right to an accurate understanding of events? I'm worried that by continuing to be a Christian, I'm supplanting Hitchens' right to live the way he wishes, in a world without Christianity, but if I drop Christianity then I'm not living the way I wish in that I'm not trusting in Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. Either way I'm gonna have to supplant somebody's right to live their lives the way they want, I was just wondering if you had any guidance on how I can avoid this moral dilemna I find myself in.

One more thing I'm confused about here. You said above that there is no "right" or "wrong", just "Steak is tasty" or "Steak sucks!" Doesn't that mean that the statement "We all have the right to live our lives the way we wish as long as I do not use my rights to supplant someone elses." carries precisely as much moral weight as "Chocolate Milk is delicious!" Would it follow that as long as I get enough people to achieve a majority so that "our sense of justice takes over", we can remove your "don't supplant other people'se rights" silliness and supplant any of your rights we please? That doesn't sound very nice. I'm not sure I like your majority rule system.

You go on to say, in denying the acceleration of immorality in our world,

The vast, vast majority of the people here are still good people. The vast majority of people still respect each others rights. We still help each other.

Are helping each other and respecting each others rights good things then? WHat do you mean by 'good' here, as opposed to 'bad'? You just got through saying goodness and badness are subject to individual interpretation, are you implying that helping each other and respecting each other's rights are globally good? If not, isn't it meaningless to say 'The vast, vast majority of people here are still good people?' Shouldn't you instead say 'The vast vast majority of people still agree with each other on some things, but not on others' ?

It does seem like you think there's some things we really ought to agree on, like religion, nationalism, sexism, homophobia, racism, and other things are bad things. (And what do you mean by bad, anyways? Do the scare quotes indicate they're not really bad, just "bad?" Are they "bad" the same way not liking Steak is "bad?") You say these are long standing problems, and that the world would be better all these divisions were gone. What about that other pernicious division that has long beleagured humanity, that of Chocolate Milk lovers vs those hated Chocolate Milk tastiness deniers? Would the world be a better place without that division? Why or why not?

Looking forward to your reply!-MiC

Logged

Why not name the website ... "whywontGodallowlaserstoshootoutofmyeyespewpewpew.com"

That is a biased belief system no matter how you slice it or dice it that promotes itself on a subjective basis but imposes it objectively on others. That is about as illogical as any argument can be. It is self-contradictory. It is blatantly illogical to say that morality is “subjective” and then project your beliefs onto someone else in any way, shape, or form. It can only become logical when you point to an objective truth in order to validate your position.

Jesus man. It is not a belief system. It is the way the world works, regardless of what we would LIKE to believe. I am not trying to impose some sort of belief system on you. I am trying to impress upon you the fact that this is how the world actually works. My morality is MINE, not yours. Nazi morality is THEIRS, not MINE. I am fully entitled to disagree with what the Nazis were doing and they are fully entitled to disagree with what I would do. The conflict arises when one tries to impose themselves and their morality onto the other. When the vast majority of the worlds people saw and agreed that the Nazi behavior was highly immoral (as judged by massive numbers of individuals... not some fictitious sky person), that is when the world rose up against them. It was not because what the Nazis were doing was "objectively" wrong... it was because massive numbers of people formed the opinion that they needed to be stopped.

You can believe in morality but you cannot justify your belief. You can say that the Nazis were wrong but without an objective standard of morality, then how can it be wrong?

I can justify my belief because in my mind, I feel what they did was a blatant violation of what I feel was "right". Because in my mind, they were wrong. It is my subjective opinion that killing innocent people is an action that should be condemned with as much force as physically possible.

The Nazi subjective opinion was that the Jews, Gypsy's, handicapped people of the world deserved death. In their minds, they were right. They justify their beliefs because they felt letting them live was the worst possible scenario for a world they wanted to create.

I can not say they were objectively wrong. Neither can they say I am objectively wrong. It is a difference of opinion on the matter. There is no scorekeeper in the sky telling which side was right and which was wrong. It doesn't exist.

Ugh. Then by your own admission you, nor anyone else, has a right to infringe upon the Nazis.

Huh? How can you possibly say that? I just finished telling you, repeatedly, that when one person's morality conflicts with another persons morality, that is when war ensues. I am justified in infringing upon the Nazi's precisely because I believe what they were doing was wrong. And in their minds, they also have the right to infringe upon me and the Jews as well.. Remember what we said a few mins ago? Using your words here (Anything and everything can be rationalized by each of us individually with the intent to establish reasons to legitimize our beliefs.) That is EXACTLY what I am suggesting and it is EXACTLY what both sides did. In that situation, it is not the "right" side that wins, (as there is no objectively "right" side). It's the side who wins the war. When the Nazi's lost, do you honestly think they said, "Gee I guess we were wrong"? No. They didn't. They still felt they were right.

This certainly seems to suggest that the process of evolving inherently produces a move towards greater strength or effectiveness. But, since I have been informed that morality is not decaying, there is no sense discussing what mechanism(s) are at work in effecting any potential outcomes.

If you want to argue that "morality" is decaying, prove that it is. Prove that morality during the dark ages of the inquisition and witch burning was better than it is now. Prove that the slave-owning, animal sacrificing, people of biblical times lived by a better "moral code" than we do now. Prove to me that the people of today's world are less generous, less giving, more violent, and more willing to hurt, rape, destroy and kill than at any other time in human history. Good luck with that. It's hogwash. Every generation thinks the world is in some sort of "moral decay", when the reality is that the world... is what it is. Sometimes people are bad, sometimes people are good. And again... good and bad are ALWAYS in the eye of the beholder.

As you suggest, there is no sense discussing the mechanisms of moral decay if moral decay is not occurring.

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

‘Subjective morality’ is an oxymoron. It necessarily permits that any action can be “right” or “wrong” depending on the person who committed the act believes it to be so. It implies that all people are morally perfect and condones acts which are obviously immoral.

You're writing without thinking...

Morality is also consensus-based. It's subjective in the sense that the rules are chosen by people, but it's objective in the sense of it being codified by laws (re. the things that land people in court).

"Subjective morality", as you're trying just a bit too desperately to demonize, does not imply that everyone is morally perfect. This is because most of us agree upon what constitutes right & wrong, and when we disagree, that occasionally results in a change to those standards. As such, the consensus/standards are accepted as imperfect.

Logged

- SMRT AdminCompared to this thread, retarded midget wrestling for food stamps is the pinnacle of human morality.-- Ambassador Pony

Am I correct then in deducing that sometimes morality is subjective and sometimes it is objective ? This question is not meant to mock your comments....I would just like to know if I am understanding you correctly.

A posted speed limit is an excellent example of subjectively objective morality. Someone chose the speed at which cars are allowed to drive along the road, but the speed limit is unambiguous and can be perceived by anyone licensed to drive a vehicle on that road.

I agree with Jessie; Great Post! Also with Jetson, you totally pwnz0red BibleStudent. I would like some (hopefully minor) clarifications, as there are parts I'm just a little confused about. Hopefully these should prove to be some minor addendums I'm sure you just overlooked.

....

At first, I typed thanks. But you have to understand, sensing sarcasm in the first sentence of a post is hard to do online. After reading the whole thing, I see you were not being serious. Oh well.

This sounds like you're saying our opinions on what is morally right and wrong is equivalent to our opinions on weather or not chocolate milk is tasty.

What do you mean by "equivalent"? I believe that opinions are formed for different reasons, and carry different amout of weight in our lives, but that they are still opinions. Chocolate milk is tasty to me because the neurons connected to my sense of taste and smell tell me so. I believe killing people is wrong because my life experiences have led me to understand that I would not like to be killed, so others also probably wouldn't like to be killed too. They are both opinions.

Moral opinions obviously carry more weight in our lives than food tastes and favorite baseball teams, but they are still opinions none-the-less. So in that respect they carry more importance. I guess my answer is yes, and no.

You are saying that the "world rose up against the Nazi's" because we disagreed on a matter of no more import than the tastiness of chocolate milk. Would you agree with this sentiment?

Not exactly. Some opinions form the basis for the way we live our lives. Some opinions form the basis for what we drink at dinner time. People don't generally go to war over their favorite beverages. It was, however, the opinion that the Nazi's were wrong to do what they did, that sent the world into war against Germany.

Would it be a similarly good thing if the majority of the world that found chocolate milk tasty rose up against that portion that didn't find it tasty and killed them (the way we did the German soldiers and civillians) for the disagreement? If not, why not? (I'm assuming you'll say Genocide and Choclate Milk tastiness are different. I personally think Genocide and Chocolate Milk tastiness are in two different categories as well. You just got through saying all disagreements are equivalent though, per your statement I quoted above, so I'm all sorts of confused)

Because someone's like or dislike of chocolate milk does not infringe in the rights of other people to live their lives in peace. I don't rise up against chocolate milk haters because they aren't hurting anyone. If a "Chocolate Milk hating club" rose up and started killing, raping and pillaging my town, I would rise against them too. Similarly, if all the Nazi's did to the Jews was give them noogies and throw spit balls at them, I wouldn't have thought it prudent to go to war with them either.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'sense of justice' here. Is it just consensus? You mentioned in the same post the percentages of 99% and 1%, is that the kind of consensus needed for our sense of justice to take over? If so, were those the actual percentages of people who agreed/disagreed with Nazi's on the whole (according to you, trivial) genocide question? Did somebody count? If those are numbers you just made up, then what kind of consensus is needed? 60/40? 51/49?

A large portion of the people of the world thought what the Nazi's were doing was wrong. All I was saying is that, at that point, they acted because they had collectively formed a similar opinion (ironically, this is what the Nazi's did too). Going to war with another country is a tough decision to make. One person doesn't usually make that kind of decision alone. But I don't think you are asking that. You are asking something different. You want to know if I think a consensus of opinion is necessary in order to take action.. is that right? If that is what you are asking, then no, it doesn't take a consensus of people to act in defense of our own opinions. In fact, very small groups of people could be compelled to act on their own "sense of justice". I dare say a consensus of one is all that is needed for someone to act on one's own moral opinion.

I have no idea what % of the people of the world agreed and disagreed with the Nazi's. I made them up. If you find out the numbers, let me know.

Quote from: JeffPT on 15 hours agoYou simply prove beyond any doubt that the morality of the atheist is far superior to that of the religious person (as long as the criteria we are judging morality on is the preservation of innocent life).

It is? First of all, according to your 'morality is like weather or not we like steak' idea, what does 'innocent' mean, anyway? Innocent usually means lacking in wrongdoing, but since right and wrong are equivalent to the tastiness of steak or chocolate milk, 'Innocent' would just mean... what? Lacking in disagreement over various aesthetic preferences? With whom? You? The majority? In that case I don't think anyone would be innocent. I'd love to hear how you define this whole innocent life thing, as it's quite confusing.

I'm sorry you are so confused.

I think I clarified this above. Some opinions drive our daily life and some tell us what tastes good. They are both opinions, but they are not equal in the way we go about using them daily. We do not usually rise up against the things that have no bearing on human suffering. Each of us will rise up against the things that give each of us the most problems. Everyone is different that way.

The term innocent is used in relation to a crime. The way I use it here has to do with whether or not each individual Jew had committed any crime worthy of death as a punishment. As the Nazi's were not killing the Jews for any specific individual crimes, and were killing them solely based on their heritage and their beliefs, then my view is that the Jews were innocent of any crime worthy of death. The Nazi's felt otherwise.

Even if you were correct that the atheist morality preserved more 'innocent' life than the Christian, would you suppose it would be OK for the Nazi to then say something like 'True, but on the standard of killing as many Jewish people as possible, Naziism has both atheism and Christianity beat hands down.'? If you're unprepared to admit Naziism is superior to your worldview (at least according to some definitions), could you explain why not?

It depends whether or not one values the killing of Jewish people. As the Nazi's valued that, sure they could make that statement. If you want to judge "good" based off of how many Jews you can kill, then Naziism is far better than atheism or Christianity (at least during WWII. A good case could probably be made that Christians throughout history have killed more Jews than the Nazi's). I am prepared to admit that the Nazi's are good at killing Jews. I am also prepared to admit that the Nazi regime constructed the autobahn, built massive infrastructure and brought Germany out of a severely depressed era after they lost the first world war. Those are good things. You have to take it on a topic by topic basis. But if you judge morality on the basis of saving innocent life, I do not believe the Nazi's have the "superior" world view, as they were killing people left and right. You are free to disagree.

We all have the right to live our lives the way we wish as long as I do not use my rights to supplant someone elses.

So does that mean we really shouldn't have gone to war with the Nazis, even though they were committing a bona-fide genocide against a truly frightening number of people, because we were supplanting their right to live in a world lacking in Jewish people?

Good point. I should clarify, as times can often come up when you are left with no choice but to infringe on someone's rights.

In situations where it is unavoidable to supplant the rights of one person over another, such as the Nazi situation, everyone chooses what they value most. In this case, I believe the Jewish right to live supercedes the Nazi desire to have a Jew-free world. It seemed a large portion of the rest of the world thought the same. That is my opinion. As your morality is completly subjective as well, you are free to disagree as the Nazi's did.

Does that mean that BibleStudent was right when he advocated not lying to the Nazi officer, because it infringed upon the Nazi officers' right to an accurate understanding of events? I'm worried that by continuing to be a Christian, I'm supplanting Hitchens' right to live the way he wishes, in a world without Christianity, but if I drop Christianity then I'm not living the way I wish in that I'm not trusting in Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. Either way I'm gonna have to supplant somebody's right to live their lives the way they want, I was just wondering if you had any guidance on how I can avoid this moral dilemna I find myself in.

Again, I believe the Jewish right to live supercedes the Nazi desire to live in a Jew free world. You can disagree if you like. I am sure you wouldn't be alone. The Nazi's would happily join you. The advice I can give you is that your morality is your own. It is subjective and not beholden to any diety or dusty old book of any kind. When faced with the decision to infringe on Christopher Hitchens right to live in a Christian free world, or choosing to live with Jesus as your Lord and savior, you must decide which you value more... truth or fiction. If you value truth, then drop Christianity.

One more thing I'm confused about here. You said above that there is no "right" or "wrong", just "Steak is tasty" or "Steak sucks!" Doesn't that mean that the statement "We all have the right to live our lives the way we wish as long as I do not use my rights to supplant someone elses." carries precisely as much moral weight as "Chocolate Milk is delicious!" Would it follow that as long as I get enough people to achieve a majority so that "our sense of justice takes over", we can remove your "don't supplant other people'se rights" silliness and supplant any of your rights we please? That doesn't sound very nice. I'm not sure I like your majority rule system.

You really are a confused person. I think we covered this a while back. Morality is an opinion about right and wrong. Opinions about right and wrong carry more weight in our lives than opinions about steak and chocolate milk. While they are both opinions, we don't go to war over what we think taste's good.

Whether you "think it sounds nice" or not, that is how the world works. The consensus of the majority wins. To the victor go the spoils. That is how the Nazi's came to power. That is how the American Indians were pushed out of their homes. That is how laws are made. That is how witches got burned. That is how the books of the bible came to be canonical and the other gospels got left out. Majority rule. I am not here to hold your hand through it. I am just here to show you that this is the way it is, and we have to live with it. If you are too scared to embrace the truth, then I have pity for you. It's really not all that bad, because most people have similar opinions about what "good" is.

Can you honestly get a bunch of people together and supplant any rights you please? If you get enough, yep you can. Just like the Nazi's did. But don't expect the rest of us to take it lying down. I am sorry you don't like it. Sometimes the truth is hard. If it makes you feel any better, I wish ice cream didn't make me fat, but I am S.O.L there too.

Are helping each other and respecting each others rights good things then? WHat do you mean by 'good' here, as opposed to 'bad'? You just got through saying goodness and badness are subject to individual interpretation, are you implying that helping each other and respecting each other's rights are globally good? If not, isn't it meaningless to say 'The vast, vast majority of people here are still good people?' Shouldn't you instead say 'The vast vast majority of people still agree with each other on some things, but not on others' ?

Helping each other and respecting each others rights are things I personally believe to be "good". Based on my knowledge of people in general, I can say that a large portion of the world shares that opinion. I am not implying that they are objectively good. I am saying it is my opinion that the vast majority of people here fit my criteria of "good" (helpful, friendly, unwilling to kill others, respectful, etc). And since I know from the experiences I have had in 35 years of life... that a large portion of the people of the world share most of my opinions about what constitutes a "good" person, I can form that opinion, yes. I can say "The vast, vast majority of people here are still good people" based on my opinion about what constitutes a good person.

It does seem like you think there's some things we really ought to agree on, like religion, nationalism, sexism, homophobia, racism, and other things are bad things. (And what do you mean by bad, anyways? Do the scare quotes indicate they're not really bad, just "bad?" Are they "bad" the same way not liking Steak is "bad?") You say these are long standing problems, and that the world would be better all these divisions were gone. What about that other pernicious division that has long beleagured humanity, that of Chocolate Milk lovers vs those hated Chocolate Milk tastiness deniers? Would the world be a better place without that division? Why or why not?

Of course I think everyone ought to agree with me on morality. It's my morality! Doesn't everyone think that? Do you know anyone who says... "Hey MathIsCool, can I borrow your morality? Mine sucks!" Don't all groups think their morality is right and everyone elses is wrong? Isn't that why the Nazi's did what they did, because they believed they were right? Isn't that why the crusades happened? Isn't that what all religions preach? Isn't that what Biblestudent wants? Isn't that what Christopher Hitchens wants? Doesn't everyone think that their version of morality is the one true, greatest version and that everyone should follow theirs? That's the problem though. There IS no one, true, objective morality. Mine is mine, and yours is yours, Hitchens has his, and so does Biblestudent. The overlap is large in regard to most things, but there are some things that you would not want me telling you to do, and vice versa. I recognize this fact. That is why, even though I WANT everyone to agree with me on moral issues, I can honestly say it is a pipe dream. I don't pretend it's going to happen.

I grow tired of the Chocolate milk references. I wish you had kept your post shorter to begin with so I didn't have to reply to the chocolate milk references so far down in the response. I already talked about that. It was kinda funny at first, but this far into the post, it's just lame.

Everyone wants things to be the way they want them to be. But you wouldn't want anyone but yourself in charge of making that happen. That can be said of pretty much everyone on the planet. It's just more evidence that morality is subjective.

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Am I correct then in deducing that sometimes morality is subjective and sometimes it is objective ? This question is not meant to mock your comments....I would just like to know if I am understanding you correctly.

A posted speed limit is an excellent example of subjectively objective morality. Someone chose the speed at which cars are allowed to drive along the road, but the speed limit is unambiguous and can be perceived by anyone licensed to drive a vehicle on that road.

I agree that the speed limit number itself is an objective thing. (There's only one way really to perceive 55mph) However, speed limits are laws, not morals. They are closely related, but not the same thing. I don't think many would say that going 56mph in a 55mph zone is morally reprehensible thing, it's just illegal. As citizens of a country/state/city, we agree to abide by the laws because they are (GENERALLY) beneficial to ourselves and those around us, or at the very least we believe them to be beneficial.

I think this is where BibleStudent (and others) may be getting confused. Lying to a potential murderer is, in most countries I assume, perfectly legal. Morally, though? Depends on who you ask. We all have the legal right (in America, at least) to HAVE any morals we want. It comes down to what infringes on another's liberty. Morally, I may think it's fine to kill another person, but the law of the land will convict me of murder if I act on that moral (with proper evidence and trial). Laws are more rigid in this way but still leave in exceptions for some type of moral relativity (eg. 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree murder, manslaughter [degrees of "wrongness"] and the different sentences that come with these), but I wouldn't call laws objective.

Morality is just a word we use to describe our opinions regarding what is "right" or "wrong". It does not exist as some sort of entity or concrete thing.

You want to know what is truly ironic about your argument? The irony is that you have thoroughly demonstrated that your argument for subjective morality is not based on knowledge or science….. which you adamantly require of the theist to provide to substantiate their belief in God. In other words, the non-theist holds that the theist position is based on faith and other subjective assertions and not on reality and thus is irrational. Yet, you are doing the exact same thing in making your argument here…..for as soon as you point to science or concrete knowledge, morality becomes subjective by default. Now, that’s irony !!

Morality is also consensus-based. It's subjective in the sense that the rules are chosen by people, but it's objective in the sense of it being codified by laws (re. the things that land people in court).

This is about as close as anyone has come to making any sense in asserting that morality is subjective.Kudos to you, Weatherman!